On December 19, 2007, a young girl from Ernakulam, Kerala, married Mr Nair and moved with him to the Gulf, first to Abu Dhabi and then to Saudi Arabia where he was working. After she became pregnant, she returned to India and settled in her hometown in Kerala. However, he would often call her and harass her about dowry.
In September, 2009, he brought her back with him, claiming he would help her find a job but she faced more mental and physical abuse there. Then, in April 2010, she was taken to his home in Saudi Arabia, where she met her in-laws. While there, she overheard them talking about selling 153 sovereigns of gold, which led her to be threatened and assaulted by him over the issue.
When she returned to India in June 2010, she objected to the sale of the 153 gold sovereigns. In response to her objections, he threatened to abandon her and her child. Ultimately, the 153 gold sovereigns were sold and a Volkswagen car was bought in his name with the proceeds. The remaining money was given to her sister-in-law for purchasing a flat.
Also read: Financial control by husband alone doesn't amount to cruelty: Supreme Court quashes 498A case
In October 2010, she again went abroad with him and was again assaulted and threatened over dowry. To meet dowry demand, her elder brother arranged Rs 5 lakh which was paid to him on May 26, 2011, followed by Rs 15 lakh on August 31, 2011 and Rs 9 lakh on June 22, 2011. After getting the money, he left her back in her native village in Kerala and returned to the Gulf.
However, in February 2015, he came back and took her to live in Mavelikkara, Kerala. While residing there, a lawyer’s notice was received in his name which was sent by one Simran G. who claimed to be his wife. Photos of them standing together were also received. When she asked about this, she was told that they were sent by somebody to fool her. Later on, her brother discovered that he had gotten married to this lady (Simran) in Andhra Pradesh on May 21, 2013 by suppressing the fact that he was already married.
After a few months, in September 2015, he started demanding money again and assaulting her. Her elder brother ended up paying the in-laws Rs 2 lakh in installments. She also claimed that he assaulted her in the presence of her in-laws when she asked about his second marriage.
So, on August 24, 2016, she went to the police station to file a complaint, saying she had been facing dowry harassment since the beginning of her marriage. She said that her husband took her to Abu Dhabi and then to Saudi Arabia after her marriage while the in-laws stayed in Kawdiar, Kerala. While she was living with her husband, he often physically assaulted and mentally tortured her. It was alleged that he would use drugs and torture her demanding of Rs 30 lakh and 47 sovereigns of gold.
Following her complaint, an FIR was registered against the husband and the in-laws. An investigation led to a chargesheet being filed on September 11, 2018 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Charges were framed and the accused persons (the husband, in-laws and his sister) pleaded not guilty and opted for a trial.
In July 2023, the accused-appellants (in-laws, sister and husband) approached the Kerala High Court and filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bearing Crl. M.C. No.5826 of 2023 seeking quashing of proceedings against them.
On November 25, 2024, the Kerala High Court noted that the prosecution records did not justify the contentions of the accused-appellants that the allegations of cruelty were not made out against them and that the second marriage was not known to them. On this basis, the High Court refused to quash the proceedings, underscoring the need for trial against the accused appellants (in-laws, sister and husband).
Unhappy with the high court’s refusal to quash the criminal case, the accused in-laws, sister and husband approached the Supreme Court.
On April 24, 2026, the Supreme Court also refused to quash the case against the husband but said the relatives cannot be made liable for bigamy offence merely based on their knowledge about the husband’s second marriage. Unless it is shown that the relatives have actively participated in, facilitated, or encouraged the solemnisation of second marriage, they cannot be held liable for bigamy, reported Livelaw.
The Supreme Court said that active participation has to be shown to prove that the in-laws have assisted in the husband’s second marriage.
The Supreme Court said that since she could not show this active participation, her allegations are vague.
The Supreme Court said that while it has been alleged that the accused in-laws and sister were aware of the second marriage, mere knowledge that an act is being or has been committed by another person does not, by itself, establish the requisite common intention. Even proceeding on the basis that the accused in-laws and sister were aware of the second marriage, there is no allegation, let alone any material, to suggest that they actively participated in, facilitated, or encouraged the solemnisation of that marriage.
In this context, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal case and FIR against the accused in-laws and sister but did not do the same for the husband.
The Supreme Court said that specific allegations regarding physical assault, demand of dowry and mental torture were made against him by her on specific dates and incidents. Whereas, the allegations against the accused-appellants are less of that of active involvement and mostly about them being present or encouraging the harassment meted out by the accused husband.
.png?w=600)
